FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZEOZ & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 1431 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection (Class XA) visa – RRT decision previously reviewed by Federal Court – no jurisdictional error found by Federal Court – conclusive outcome that RRT decision is privative clause decision – application for judicial review dismissed as incompetent. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.91X, 477(1A), 483A
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Mohamed v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 4
SZBML v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 431 (21 June 2004)
SZCTT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 498 (9 August 2004)
SZBML v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1195 (14 September 2004)
SZCTT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1746 (9 December 2004)
SZCAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 598 (13 September 2004)
SZCAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1549 (2 October 2004)
| Applicants: | SZEOZ, SZEPA & SZEPB |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SYG 3118 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 30 September 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 13 September 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Lloyd-Jones FM |
REPRESENTATION
The applicant mother appeared in person with the aid of an interpreter.
| Advocate for the Respondent: | Mr I Muthalib |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
The respondent’s Notice of Objection to Competency filed on
6 September 2005 is upheld.
The application for judicial review filed on 19 October 2004 is dismissed as incompetent.
The Court directs that no further application by the applicants to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 24 July 2001 and handed down on 15 August 2001 is to be accepted for filing without leave of the Court.
The adult applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3118 of 2004
| SZEOZ, SZEPA & SZEPB |
Applicants
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The proceedings
By an Notice of Objection to Competency filed on 6 September 2005, the respondent objects to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the applicants’ application on the basis that it was not filed within 28 days of the notification of the decision sought to be reviewed as required by s.477(1A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). The respondent submitted that the application should be dismissed as this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear it.
In the alternative, the Notice of Motion filed on 26 July 2005 seeks the summary dismissal of the application filed by the applicant on
19 October 2004 on the grounds that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or the proceedings are otherwise an abuse of process.
These proceedings were commenced by an application under s.39B…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read SZEOZ v Minister for Immigration and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] FMCA 1431
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Szeoz, the applicant, had the requisite mental competency to pursue a judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision. This involved assessing Szeoz's mental state and determining if he could comprehend the nature and consequences of the judicial review process. Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural fairness of the objection process and whether the Minister had acted appropriately in raising the objection.
The court found that Szeoz did not possess the necessary mental competency to pursue a judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision. It was determined that Szeoz lacked the ability to understand the legal proceedings and their implications. The court upheld the Minister's Notice of Objection to Competency, finding that the application for judicial review was indeed incompetent. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the court issued directions prohibiting further applications without its leave. Furthermore, the court ordered Szeoz to pay the costs and disbursements incurred by the Minister for Immigration.
The court's decision was final, with specific orders including the dismissal of Szeoz's application for judicial review, the upholding of the Notice of Objection to Competency, and the imposition of costs on Szeoz. The court also prohibited any future applications by Szeoz seeking review of the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision without prior leave.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The respondent’s Notice of Objection to Competency filed on
6 September 2005 is upheld.
2.
The application for judicial review filed on 19 October 2004 is dismissed as incompetent.
3.
The Court directs that no further application by the applicants to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 24 July 2001 and handed down on 15 August 2001 is to be accepted for filing without leave of the Court.
4.
The adult applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.